On the first day of this year, the Israeli Supreme Court issued a ruling overturning an amendment to the Basic Law that passed the Knesset in July, which states that the court cannot overturn a law on the grounds that it is “unreasonable.” In a separate, parallel ruling, the court granted itself the power to overturn Basic Laws. Yonoson Rosenblum comments:

As works of legal craftsmanship, the majority opinions in the recent decision could not have been shoddier. As a number of commentators noted, if the sources of the High Court’s authority to strike down Basic Laws were clear, there would have been no need to spill over 700 pages of text to justify the decision. But [the outgoing court president Esther] Hayut does not speak the language of samkhut (legal authority based on statute), but rather that of hatsdakah (fitting, proper, just). That is of a piece with her declaration at a legal conference that she views her role as conforming the law to the dictates of justice. About her own ability to determine what is just, as opposed to what the representatives of the population voted on, she is not plagued by any self-doubt.

No fewer than 62 times in her opinion did she write, “in my opinion.”

Had the High Court wanted to avoid triggering another round of social discord, it had the means to do so. . . . In this case, the court could have noted that the so-called “unreasonableness clause amendment” to the Basic Law did not affect in any respect the High Court’s ability to overrule executive or administrative actions on a host of other grounds, most notably a lack of proper legal authority for the decision in question, and therefore was of little impact on the High Court’s powers.

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”